Th1S iS H0w wE R1s3 uP!Silver Supporter

So there are many posts about people abiding by the SB941, now I am not suggesting anyone not obey laws that would be against NWFA rules.
So if someone is thinking of doing a non-FFL transfers in Oregon here are some major problems
to be considered so don't do it.

1. If a person has bought a firerarm at a FFL prior to August 9th 2015, then if that person was to sell said firearm without and FFL, and the buyer years later was approached by law enforcement and was traced back to the FLL of sale through the past seller they both could be facing legal problems.

2. Any firearm that is not sold through a FFL and the buyer so chooses to sell the firearm either to another private party or FFL will in many case also will be in legal trouble as both the previous FFL and possibly police will have the transaction record if original new sale was after Aug 9th 2015 showing whom should own it.

3. If said firearm was purchased new prior to August 9th 2015, and was later sold after that date why records would not exist if the person said the private sale was close to August 9th where they bought and then quickly sold it might be considered a straw sale. Having a firearm and selling it or buying one prior to August 9th as date of transfer are 100% legal prior. So to have had a legal transfer the date of sale must be know before Aug 9th 2015.

As time goes on the distance between sales before August 9 and After will begin to space where eventually more firearms will be bought and sold via FLL because there is no other legal option.
So it is very important for anyone to find out when the firearm was first purchased as this will be the date inquired if there is an issue.
Of course multiple transfers between family members is 100% legal regardless of purchase date.

I am in no way suggesting that people use the above legal limits to circumvent the law.
And I provided no information with instruction how one might do this, this is only a warning of what people should be aware of in the law and possible results and problem. This is not legal advice please inquire of all laws prior to any transfer.

This has been a DuneHopper community service announcement !
I'm DuneHopper and I approve this message.

Silver SupporterSilver SupporterBronze Supporter

What if some clown says he purchased it before the ban, and what if said clown resides in another state and had originally purchased it from that state and crosses over state lines and sells it to you.
Now what if you need to use that out of state gun in a defensive shooting.
Who's gonna take the fall?

Th1S iS H0w wE R1s3 uP!Silver Supporter

What if some clown says he purchased it before the ban, and what if said clown resides in another state and had originally purchased it from that state and crosses over state lines and sells it to you.
Now what if you need to use that out of state gun in a defensive shooting.
Who's gonna take the fall?

Click to expand...

Thats why hypothetically sales with people one knows in these situations are going to be a plus until these laws are repealed. The only other way hypothetically is get the serial number and see the purchase year. Even then its not 100%. Sadly to go into more detail would be violating the rules here by explaining how to circumvent the law. Trust me biting my tongue not saying how it can be done because NWFA is clear we cant discuss how to do that.

Th1S iS H0w wE R1s3 uP!Silver Supporter

Is there a prosecuted case in Oregon yet? Its been over a year now in Washington and I have not heard of a single person charged with violating our version, let alone convicted of a crime..

Click to expand...

Only one de facto, that used old laws to prosecute and yet quoted SB941 as the actionable event which it was not . It was a man who knowingly sold a firearm to a felon which was already illegal.
Hence the word knowingly. The firearm was not even transferred after Aug 9th yet Ceasefire Oregon reported it as a win for SB941 even though the even as way before it was affective so far none since August in a bill that was passed as a state emergency .

Th1S iS H0w wE R1s3 uP!Silver Supporter

Tighter regulations create larger black markets.
How many of the gang shootings in 2015 in Portland, or anywhere for that matter, were with legally obtained guns?
Sheriffs going on record, in print, in both WA and OR saying that it is an unenforceable rule probably doesn't help prevent the illegal market from thriving.
Good point though, all my defensive weapons have gone thru a BGC of some kind to CoverMyA.

Opinionated MemberLifetime Supporter

I have no facts to back it up but I suspect at least in Washington the new law has resulted in more guns in the hands of law abiding folks.

Prior to I594 I would try to exhaust all hope of buying used before I would consider new and often would sell stuff that I had lost interest in to fund new purchases.

Since it went into effect I have not sold a single firearm and everything I have bought has been new (I would have to scratch my head for a minute but including NFA stuff I would say I bought close to 20 "firearms" in 2015 although many where suppressors and one a SBR)

So at least for me personally my collection grew significantly because of the hassle of private FFL deals.
I understand that is probably not typical but I would bet that across the board there is no doubt that it had a significant effect on the number of legal guns in good folks hands.

Not that I think the law is acceptable, but more guns is a good thing regardless

Gold SupporterGold SupporterSilver Supporter2016 Volunteer

Interesting stuff.
I tried to purchase a handgun today. But the potential wait for Constitutionally illegal transfer and BGC BS would have made me late for other obligations. Whether you agree with doing away with our freedoms or not, purchasing firearms has become a major PITA. I miss the days when you could buy and sell your tools without government approval.

Bronze SupporterBronze Supporter

One way around this issue is to move one's residency to a "free state". At that point, any and all firearms in one's possession then plausibly and officially go off the books as they can legally be sold in a truly private transaction which would be "off the books".

From that point forward, as the laws stand right now, one does not need to account to anyone for those firearms with any proof of sale - the government then has to prove that one still has possession of those firearms.

I fully realize that this is not something most people can do - most people have jobs and families and other roots that keep them either in Oregon or WA state, and they can't just up and move very easily.

OTOH, some people, those who are retired for example, can declare residency in a state like S. Dakota, with a little work and a little travel, and then be free, for some time anyway, of these unconstitutional laws. They can still live here in Oregon if they are careful to remember that they are now a resident of another state and that this complicates some things, like buying firearms here.

The risk is that, as noted in another thread about executive orders expanding BGCs federally, or more likely, requiring some people to get an FFL, that eventually the federal laws and regulations will require BGCs for every transaction in any state.

Bronze SupporterBronze Supporter

However, I would not be surprised that eventually the anti-gunners will get around to finding a way to close that "loophole" too.

If I were to go that route, I would buy the 80% parts at a gun show, for cash. The BATF has already shown that they are quite willing to raid some manufacturers facilities and confiscate their sales records and then go after their customers. It would be best to avoid that if possible.

Unfortunately, not every firearm that a person could wish to own, has an 80% kit available for it.

Bronze SupporterBronze Supporter

Im in the same boat as Iron. I've bought multiple new guns the second half of this year due to the extra cost of buying used.

Click to expand...

Before the new BGC laws, I was willing to pay a premium for a used firearm I wanted in order to keep that transaction off the books. Today, a used firearm doesn't have that value to me, and all else being equal, I might as well buy a new firearm if the cost is roughly the same.

Th1S iS H0w wE R1s3 uP!Silver Supporter

Isnt keeping the FFL transfer a form of registration? How long are FFL required to keep these records.

Click to expand...

Yes the FFL form in my opinion is based registration on how records are kept, for how long and with what details. The OSP has been very tight lipped on confirming how long they keep information and policy is up to them not any law. So if they decide tomorrow to keep them 100 years they could as no law prevents it. Furthermore FFL's are required to have records awhile too and some keep them forever. There is a local store here that just has them stacked up equalling decades none of the laws tells them how long they "cant" keep them, laws only cover minimums not maximums. And even all of this is not in stone really but rest assured if a Person does a transfer I would bet on it everyone including the OSP has records way longer then they are saying. They say its records its registration. When you go to college they register you each year why because the old records don't matter. So why does the OSP and FLL keep them after a few months why would it matter unless the long term goal is to have more and more firearms records. Just my two cents.

WELCOME!

Northwest Firearms provides a place for gun owners of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho a place to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Participation is completely free and registration takes only a few moments.

About Northwest Firearms

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.